The Radiohead Model
Today your regular bloggers have been replaced by Ben, Chris, Nick, and Jason of Death Cab For Cutie. The band's new album Narrow Stairs is out now. DCFC are not professional bloggers, so please send them tips.
By Chris Walla
It feels, of late, like more has been written about "The Radiohead Model" than about the music Radiohead actually makes. It's a fascinating game those guys play, all the ways they tell their story; the little corners they choose to lift to show off their flashy lights and old effects boxes. And, of course, their genuinely well-intentioned and sometimes peerless music.
We've now done scores of interviews around the release of Narrow Stairs. Most of them touch on some version of music industry gloom and doom, but I'm fascinated at how many of these interviewers frame that question in the context of "The Radiohead Model": So, that thing Radiohead did -- will you do it?; that other thing Radiohead did -- would that work for you?; and so on.
My favorite thing about "The Radiohead Model" is that really, nothing dramatic happened ... It's available online, and also in stores. I trade my currency away to a retailer for a Radiohead product or experience. There isn't such a new model. And that's the most genius thing, to me, about In Rainbows ... They've told a story everyone was dying to hear.
Also, advance word is that the record's great.
You can check out Chris Walla's cover of "Polyethylene (Parts 1 & 2)" on Stereogum Presents... OKX: A Tribute To OK Computer.
Posted at 3:45 PM in Death Cab Guest Blog
Tags: Death Cab For Cutie | Radiohead
Wow, first manhandling Roger Waters/Pink Floyd, now Radiohead -- Walla is really tearing it up today, huh? Who is next on your hit list, man? I am almost afraid to ask.
Score = 2
once again, chris. you are right.
Score = -1
is this a cheap way of dodging the fact death cab is on atlantic yet still claims to be credible and "indie"??
Score = -7
I'm pretty sure being on a major label and being credible are not mutually exclusive.
Score = 9
what are you talking about?? he didn't say anything negative about radiohead. He's just discussing the so called 'model' that the press has been talking about, so please be quiet.
on a side note: chris, you are the man.
Score = 0
I never said Chris was saying anything negative, but rather he's addressing some heavy-weight topics. We don't get a chance to hear that very often from these guys. I didn't get the part that Radiohead "told a story everyone was dying to hear," though, and kinda agree with Ben F. a few comments below about this blog being a bit vague. But hey, that's what blogs are for, amiright?
Score = 1
I dunno, other artists have been doing the same thing for awhile.
That chick Jane Siberry was doing a 'pay what you will, I trust you' thing on her website...
Score = 0
I think I know why Chris is a musician and not a blogger/journalist. This piece is far too vague, there is absolutely no substance to it at all. Furthermore, the conclusion that Chris comes to at the very end of the piece: that Radiohead, "told a story everyone was dying to hear," doesn't make any sense. What story are you talking about Chris? If you are going to make an argument against "The Radiohead Model," make a goddamn argument, don't spout vague bullshit and then expect everyone to agree with you.
Score = 2
Hey Ben!
No argument against The Radiohead Model - the point is that there isn't any new model, but that they were brilliant enough to convince us otherwise. They're great at that stuff. They're also a great band, I've just heard much less about that of late than their method of delivery.
Made with the utmost respect, these here sentences. Respecinize.
Score = 3
I just replied to this comment because I know I probably may never have the chance to hit "In reply to WALLA" on Stereogum ever again.
Score = 4
maybe your higher status among the sorts of people who pass along nonsensical terms like 'the radiohead model' means that someone will listen to you, because i've been saying pretty much the same thing until i was blue in the face. and then i had to stop and take a breath, because that's a sign that things are not healthy at all.
Score = 0
Respecinize is a great word
Score = -1
You're absolutely right that Radiohead really didn't do anything new. There had been other major recording artists to go it alone before, quite possibly the most notable being Prince who emancipated himself from Warner Bros. and created Paisley Park. Tech savvy underground artists have long offered digital downloading of there music, quite possibly as long as it has been an option.
Perhaps with digital music revolution sort of in our faces, Radiohead became the model of the day and one of the biggest bands to embrace that revolution and thwart the old model so openly. Funnily enough, it was temporary as they didn't seem to have the distribution capabilities as NIN or Prince. In the end, I think it was all a matter of marketing and creating a buzz when people had all but given up on the hopes of another Radiohead album.
Score = 1
I think the thing people might be missing about the Radiohead model is that they did everything without a label. They completely bi-passed the traditional music industry model. Granted, they had a massive and dedicated fanbase that helped make that possible, but I think musicians being able to get in stores, brick and motor and online, without a label is pretty exciting.
Score = 0
they were able to bypass the traditional music industry model because of the massive amounts of marketing and promotional money Capitol poured into them throughout the nineties and 00s (aughts?)...without that, they'd be another Govt. Mule or Widespread Panic (i.e. huge, rabid fanbase, but unknown by the general public.)
and i could be mistaken, but the record didn't show up in any tangible form (ther than that 80 dollar vinyl box) until they did sign with a label.
as for the "they've told everyone a story they everyone wanted to hear" is pretty straightforward, dudes. music journalist are constantly prophesying the end of the major label system, and radiohead's story gave them some sort of validation, so they ALL embraced it..
saul williams' self-released album that completely tanked? not so much.
Score = 2
There's no question that the position that Radiohead are in derives from a decade's worth of major label support. And I'd also agree that Radiohead are just the most high profile example of changes that are happening thoughout the industry (NIN and Saul Williams as you mention; Madonna signing with a touring company rather than a label seems like another example).
But I don't think you can write off the significance of the In Rainbows strategy entirely. First, for all that they subsequently had the album distributed by a major (which in itself is quite different from being "signed to a label"), AFAIK this deal wasn't set in stone when the download version was released. There was a significant chance that the "experiment" would not go as well as it did: that the download would not sell, that as a result the record would not be attractive to a large label, that the whole event would tarnish the Radiohead "brand". In that light, it was a pretty gutsy thing to do for a band that really has a lot to lose.
Secondly, while the label build-up and pre-existing fanbase mean this isn't a model that can be exactly duplicated by most other artists, the fact that it's been done by such a high profile act may turn out to be a major step in acclimatising the general music-buying public to this sort of independent release model - that model's already made some headway in the music industry, and while I don't think it's a death knell for major labels quite yet, I don't think you want to underestimate the potential this has to shake things up.
Anyway, just my 2c...
Score = 1
not to mention that they gave their fans the option to choose the price, and allowed it to be snagged for free. did these 'tech-savvy underground artists' (who apparently shall remain nameless) do the same, kim?
Score = 0
Yes. There were a lot of bands that did this before Radiohead. And they didn't require you to give a credit card, either.
Example: Harvey Danger. They allowed DD and Torrents for free like two or three years ago.
Score = 0
Chris is right. Radiohead did nothing revolutionary with In Rainbows (and no, I'm not being sarcastic).
Score = -1
Well, while Radiohead continues to do "nothing revolutionary," I'll continue to download Narrow Stairs for free off of The Pirate Bay.
Score = 4
Please tell me what was so revolutionary about offering an album for free (and then charging for it three months later)? Nothing.
Score = -2
Exactly.
Score = -2
I was a fan of DCFC but no more. Not only is your new album trash but your trashing very talented people for the sake of your ego. Wake up. You are just kids from seattle with one good album. You are a footnote. Soon to be lost to time. Give up.
Score = -22
Jesus titty-fucking Christ. NOWHERE did he say anything negative about Radiohead. Maybe you didn't hear because your head was so far up Thom Yorke's ass that you were nibbling on his tonsils, but he simply said that what they did with the In Rainbows download is nothing new nor revolutionary. Which he is right about.
Score = 0
negative seventeen - a new low. good job! +1
Score = 0
The Radiohead Model will only work for bands that have already "made it". These bands have let major labels market the shit out of them their whole careers, and now that they are big rock stars with millions of dollars, they're bailing out on their labels. But if you look at bands like Mindless Self Indulgence, they've built a fan base and audience through excessive touring and word of mouth. All on their own. No help from a major label, and they are reaping the benefits of that. It can be done, but the music has to be good.
Score = -1
Remember how, in the olden days, you would read what a band had said in some magazine and you could take it for what it was worth and it didn't come with a bunch of "OMG WHATEVER DOOD YOU GUYS SUX I HOPE U DIE" comments?
That was kinda awesome. Hey, anyone care for some penny candy?
Score = 7
Maybe if you were a loner with few friends to talk about music with, but people have argued the same close-minded arguments about this art since it's inception, probably (I can't speak on the pretensions of ancient man).
The internet didn't start this, it just put it somewhere you could easily find it. Turn on your "troll filter" or whatever and move on. There are still decent comments between all the noise.
Score = -1
A more important fact about the "Radiohead Model" that is constantly missed is the fact that it fostered a sense of community among those who like their music.
That morning was the first ANYONE heard the music. And EVERYONE who was a fan got to hear it that morning. The excitement it created was similar to the days of old when Tower Records would stay open 'til midnight because the new ______ record was being released the next day.
With leaks on the internet, reviews that are out weeks earlier than the release, etc., when was the last time everyone got to experience something like this collectively. Added to that, the record was incredible in many ways.
The fact that the purchaser chose the price just made the community larger.
I don't know if the Radiohead "experience" would have been the same with a mediocre record. But I do know that without the "Radiohead Model" the experience wouldn't have been the same.
I think that's the lesson that should be learned from this experiment, far more than the monetary cost of In Rainbows, which is so overblown-even by the author of this article.
Score = 7
Apple didnt invent the use of icons and the mouse either...but i'm pretty sure they used it the best and showed the world 'how its done' (WINK) Oh btw, the OS, which you could say is/was lightyears ahead of anyone else, is pretty amazing too. And they'll always have a huge devoted following. Kinda sounds familiar? haha, that anaology just came to me. N E WAY, enuff of this dumb conversation, its not worth the energy. RH are amazing but talking about the online debut thing anymore is dafter than a mofo, its O-VA!
Score = -4
I think one of the reasons IN RAINBOWS was revolutionary is because they let the people decide how much they wanted to pay for it. I think that most people can agree that artists should receive some monitary compensation for their music, especially a band like radiohead (and DCFC for that matter). If I could walk into a music store and dictate the price of the record, I think that I would probably own narrow stairs right now. But since I am not particularly willing to shell out $13+ for it, I guess I'll make do. Another reason why radiohead is revolutionary is because they completely side-stepped a major lable and put it out themselves. Not only that, but the record was instantly accessable. Sure, other people have done it before, but they had their own stipulations on what warrented the download. But I think the most crucial factor is timing. The internet is still new, relatively speaking. Back when other artists were putting their albums online, people were waiting days for their slow-as-hell modems to download the album. Now its the click of the button. The internet has never been used to share music, news, new bands, etc. as it is today. Also, so many people were pumped on a new radiohead album in the first place. Everybody, and if you were honest would admit, lost their shit when the news of the radiohead album came out. I don't think it was a "model" as much as it was an experiment and it certainly caused a stir.
Score = 0
no, Trent Reznor was the first to do it best and show the world how it should be done not Radiohead, who did it way after Trent announced his plans for future releases after his contract with Interscope was up. and Radiohead still got it wrong... low quality 160kbps??? come on now now.. that's myspace quality.
try lossless flac files, high quality mp3's, apple lossless, and HD WAV. files as options... all for free.
Score = -1
Get Trent Reznor's balls out of your mouth.
Score = 2
myspace is 96kbps
Score = 0
"but that they were brilliant enough to convince us otherwise."
if that's what you're taking issue with then i don't know about that. thom & co didn't go off spouting about how amazing their idea of releasing it for almost nothing was in any of the press i saw. i think the biggest part of the in rainbows experience was when everyone thought the album was months away they dropped it in 10 days in a method that was unconventional for the biggest band in the world.
Score = 2
ooh! got ourselves real fuggin' internet gangsta over here. go sit your sorry ass down in a corner somewhere and lthink about why you spent money on some low quality shit.
myspace quality is 160kbps or anything below that.
please don't bother replying to this, just accept the facts and move on. im not here to argue with you white boys about bit rate.
Score = -2
out of you're mind, radiohead did this like someone mentioned to create there own leak.
it had nothing to do with making money, and everything to do with remembering that feeling of going to the record store on the day your favorite bands record was released, picking it up, and listening to it. so trent reznor can say what he wants but he's a moron, radiohead admittedly put the poor quality on their website hoping that if you liked it enough you would buy it when it was released in physical form. again this goes back to the record store thing. how many torrents or leaked or advance albums are high quality you idiot? and in no way was this a "shrewd marketing scheme". radiohead bum rushed it on there website thats it. it had 10 days of "marketing" on their own website, if thats what you call a post by jonny greenwood on oct 1. the massive downloading and money making proves radioheads greatness. nothing trent reznor speaks of has any substance to it. if trent really gave a fuck about the music he wouldn't have cared enough to release the amount of people or money he made off it. radiohead at least understands that, and is probably why they dont care to share with you how much they made off of in rainbows. it simply doesnt matter.
check your facts, read and listen to the interviews, and tell trent reznor to quit being so jealous.
Score = 2
i don't care whether you like Trent or not, (this isn't about that) the fact is that he did it the RIGHT way. he offered the album online for free in many different formats for you to choose from. and if you chose to you could pay... or if you wanted a physical album you could pre order the album in whatever edition you wanted for an asking price.
now im, not disagreeing with you about Radiohead letting you choose how much you paid for the album being a really cool thing, but i think its crazy fucked up that they didn't offer anything over some low quality mp3.
and further more even though Trent was giving the album away fro free.... the album still went platinum in a week. the VERY FIRST certifiably independent album to EVER do so....don't try to rewrite history.
the only people that want to look past this fact are the haters (usually Radiohead fans) who have something against Trent... probably the same peeps who do nothing but whine on the Lollapalooza board about how Radiohead must absolutely headline the last day of Lollapalooza with no other band playing against them.
Score = 1
it has already been confirmed that radiohead will be playing the first night of lollapalooza, that has been known since the day radiohead released the dates for its second leg of the north american tour. WRONG ONCE
and you HAD to, let me say that again HAD to pay to get the higher quality version of the NIN record. WRONG TWICE. so not sure why you say radiohead fans have such a beef with NIN or that they are ignoring the facts when in all actuality it seems like the Trent Reznor backers are mis-construing the facts. seems more like NIN fans have a beef with radiohead since your arguments as well as Mr. Reznor's are disingenuous.
oh and by the way it has been reported that radiohead's online sales went platinum within three days
Score = -1
i didn't say what day they would be playing. i really don't care.. i just mentioned the people that keep whineing about how they absolutely must play the final night. you know those that even came up with the theory that they will announce that Radiohead will play the first and last night.
STOP twisting my words around!
secondly.
NO, YOU ARE WRONG!.
the free download was already 320kbps. you could pay if you wanted a physical copy... which is why it went platinum as a completely independent release. although they offered for download a high quality mp3 album for free, people still bought the album.
once again.
please stop twisting my words around.
Score = 0
I agree with Simon: what Radiohead did that was special was make you type a zero.
As for that whole music community thing, with everyone hearing it at the same time? That line of thought makes me want to throw up. The only reason that feels new is because of all the jackasses who steal their music from torrents before the album comes out. Remember going to buy something on the day it comes out? What happened to *that* community?
Score = 1
Not exactly. They also didn't send out advance copies to media outlets which is a very unusual thing. I think that's what more what they meant as far as the "whole music community thing, with everyone hearing it at the same time"
Score = 2
this definitely wasn't a publicity stunt. they did want they wanted and because they could. it was a temporary solution to a frustrating problem and actually made the consumer think. my only issue was that the press made it out to be a publicity stunt and that's all they focused on with their media coverage. i would've preferred more news articles discussing the genius within the album's music.
also, as far as consumers, i dont think i had been that excited about an album release for a LONG TIME. i realized how leaks really hamper that. it was really an experience staying up to get the download, listening to it, and knowing that all their fans were engaging in a similar experience together at one time. they connected to us directly by taking out the middle men--whether it's the record company, music reviewers, and any other media.
Score = 2
I agree with this. Radiohead's music was basically overlooked to the way they released it. Unannounced, and with the pricing choice you wanted. But the story many people aren't hearing is that they aren't doing it again, and they are signed to a label again. They didn't revolutionize anything. It was just something they were going to try.
Score = 1
I love how Radiohead(the enviromental saviors) are putting cash in the pockets of a corporation (DMB) that dumped 800 pounds of shit in the Chicago river! Oh the irony...
Score = 0
I think most people would interpret describing Radiohead's music as "well-intentioned" as a passive-aggressive form of attack. Emphasizing intention oppose to product connotes failure. You call the illiterate kid who draws his essay in crayon well-intentioned; you call the genius of the class a good writer.
And, yes, Radiohead did something new -- there is no denying that. They gave away their album for free. AND it was an album that people actually cared about. Are you giving away your album for free? No? OK.
Score = 0
maybe you'll get so much publicity they will be talking about the death cab model next year
Score = 0
Now there is no way in hell I'm buying anything DCfC, including records, merch or concert tickets. I hope being able to vent their bitter little subjective tirades was worth it.
DCfC will never be able to hold a candle to anything produced by Roger Waters, Radiohead, Billy Corgan or Bjork anyway.
Score = -1
Geez, people. The Radiohead model argument is getting redundant. To me, this was the interesting comment:
"It's a fascinating game those guys play, all the ways they tell their story; the little corners they choose to lift to show off their flashy lights and old effects boxes."
*That* seems a little backhanded and belittling. Although I know Radiohead uses vintage gear, they've *never* made a point of letting that play into their image. And they were one of the first really popular and respected rock bands to embrace the more digital aspects of music in the 90s, so of course people and the press tend to play up their digital-ness or "flashy lights", but they often use those things as a way to explore musical options, not as gimmicks. Like the vintage gear, I don't see Radiohead implementing digital processing in any way other than to help write a song. Then they turn around very often and hit you with a 'typical-for-Radiohead' rock song devoid of any blatant electronic instrumentation which shows, to me, they certainly are aware and capable of playing into and shaking up a listener's expectations, not just gimmicky, soon-to-be-dated studio trickery.
And I'm not a huge Radiohead fan or anything; I've really only heard InRainbows in social situations, but I think this would be the wrong area to take swipes at them. They seem to be pretty earnest musicians simply concerned with making music they think is important by methods they think are innovative. I wish all musicians were so self-aware and critical. It may not seem groundbreaking to everyone, but it's certainly not to be dismissed.
And, Chris Walla, I'm somewhat underexposed to DCFC's and your music, so don't mistakenly think that I'm trying to backhand you and your music. I definitely don't want to imply that your band is gimmicky. Although, it could be, I really don't know.
Score = 0
Tsk Tsk. Some people are need to clam down. The guy is totally right here, he's not really bashing Radiohead, he's just being reasonable. I'm not even that into Death Cab, but you've gotta admit the guy is smart and well-informed.
Score = 0
Tsk Tsk. Some people here need to calm down. The guy is totally right here, he's not really bashing Radiohead, he's just being reasonable. I'm not even that into Death Cab, but you've gotta admit the guy is smart and well-informed.
Score = 0
hes offering his opinion...its a guest blog, he said basically radiohead didnt really do anything that revolutionary and more deal is being made about the release of the album than the music. 100% right. whats the problem people?
Radiohead's managers came up with the idea anyway. And if you wanna talk corporate bands, don't even dare try to act like Radiohead isn't one...
Score = 0
coldplay is gay.
Score = -1
I think what Radiohead did with this model that no one else had done before was make a truckload of money and generate enough buzz about it that even people who pay no attention to music have probably heard about it by now. While the online release itself was nothing special, the media ramifications that have Walla's panties in a bunch are quite out of the ordinary. Seems like he needs to look at the big picture.
Score = 0
"oh and by the way it has been reported that radiohead's online sales went platinum within three days"
Calling BS...Prove it.
The Radiohead Model: Release a MySpace audio quality In Rainbows w/o telling prospective buyers of that fact, make some quick bucks and generate a ton of publicity and then sign w/ a record label and release the same In Rainbows at the same price. WHAT A REVOLUTION!!!!!! Trent Reznor owns this and only sleepy, loud guitar averse Radiohead fans seem to actually believe this tripe.
Score = -1
spin magazine cited a source "close to the band" that said radiohead sold 1.2 million copies of the digital download and the story was on 10.12.07 which is only two days after the release, but i guess you're right. well never know if its actually true or not because radiohead dont cheapen themselves by letting everyone know how much money they made like mr reznor did.
not to mention trents only made 750,000 in 3 days
and was after radioheads
so when people start talking about how trent put out saul williams album online before in rainbows and you actually had to pay 5 dollars for a good quality version then maybe we can have a debate
oh and if anyone noticed kanye took NIN spot atop the lolla lineup
hahaha
Score = 0
i see a lot of arguments about whether the radiohead model is actually radioheads, or NIN's... i think you have to look to The Charlatans UK for the origin of this!
Score = 0
it is pretty easy to figure out how much money radiohead made off the "online sales" of this album. it was reported (cant remember where...maybe spin) that the average price paid for the album was 7 dollars. they sold 1.2 million in just three days someone said? so that right there is 8.4 million. that number of course is neglecting the between 60,000-80,000 discbox versions of the album that were sold.
radiohead was smart in knowing that "giving away" their album would create a huge buzz. which it did. within the radiohead community of listeners, i would venture to guess that a more than fair amount of their fans read blogs and hear about new music in other, less traditional forms than bands used to get their music heard in the past (i.e. music magazines, mtv, etc). so why would they waste money on advertising in such ways. they KNEW and fully understood the power of the internet to create its own advertising. every blog reported what radiohead was doing hours after radiohead made the announcement. radio and music magazines were quick to follow. it was a marketing scheme and it worked. 8.4 million dollars in three days right?
i find their then releasing it with a label to be somewhat disgusting. i say this because only then did their fans have the option to buy a high quality version of the album complete with album art and liner notes. i am not crazy about radiohead, but their music is far from commercial and more on the artistic side of things for lack of a better word. because their music is more artistic, i would guess their average fan to appreciate music as art, and also to appreciate the whole album experience which includes album art, liner notes, and the plastic wrap you have to rip off before popping the disc into your cd player. so how many radiohead fans bought the album twice? probably a lot. the first week sales in the u.s. alone were at 122,000. five years prior, hail to the thief had first week sales of 300,000. that decline is about on par with the overall decline in cd sales.
so to end this obnoxiously long post...all radiohead really did was get anyone who was willing to pay albums in the first place, to pay for it twice. well done lads.
Score = 0
The reason Radiohead isn't releasing their numbers is that they're likely embarrassed by their cynical ploy and they're backpedaling. Trent Reznor is releasing numbers for transparency's sake and because Trent Reznor is a leader, unlike Radiohead. It's not suprising that Radiohead lacked the courage to follow through, their music is nice, but wholly inoffensive and somewhat prissy. But hey, why should I spend all this energy, I'll just let the legendary Bob Ezrin say it for me:
"Trent Reznor is a true visionary. He has broken and reinvented the rules of engagement on every level, from recording to touring to interacting with his fans.
He's an intensely determined person—aware and on top of everything that happens in his name, from his music to his marketing. Trent controls all things Trent. Yes, he's had help along the way, but he's the captain of the Trent ship and his career is a product of his imagination and drive. He is not manufactured, homogenized, manipulated or packaged. He is Trent—and the rest of the folks get to react."
Score = -1
'not to mention trents only made 750,000 in 3 days'
Sorry uninformed douchebag, he made 750,000 on the sale of the deluxe $300 boxsets ALONE, and that happened in only one day. See, unlike Radiohead, Trent, the visionary, had a genius idea....let the super die hard fans who are willing to shill out that kind of money subsidize the freebies. What did Radiohead do, oh yeah that's right....they ripped off their fans with a low sound quality download(which they didn't mention before you pay, tsk, tsk), and then charging the normal exorbitant price in the record stores, basically getting their fans to pay twice for the same product. Stay classy Radiohead!
Score = -1
Bottom line- Trent wouldn't have started this free distribution shit if Radiohead hadn't done it. Otherwise, he would have done it for With Teeth or Year Zero. He even acknowledged it in the press release for Saul Williams' album.
He's built off of it, and capitalized getting his much needed hip cred back, and that's cool. But jesus christ, Max Thrax, you sound like a creepy slave to the man. I love Trent, I love his music. But you need to be easy. Mud slinging in the name of NIN was only cool 14 years ago at Woodstock.
You're just being a tool. Radiohead was able to release the music as fast as possible, before they had to go through the wrangling of licensing and liner notes and producing all that shit. Not to mention doing all those things cost a lot of money. Sure, it's grimy of Radiohead to maybe have people pay for something twice, but shitttt, Trent was on some highway robbery shit compared to that with his release of Ghosts.
Score = 0
last one:
And since when did music have to be offensive to be good? Radiohead doesn't talk about fucking like animals, so they can't be good? And by way of that, they're prissy? Jeez, it's hard to even know where to start with a ridiculous statement like that.
They're far from easy-listening. They can be unsettling (Like Spinning Plates/Fitter Happier/Videotape) without resorting to screaming and cursing and overloading on violent imagery- which is something that was pretty much impossible for Trent for the first ten years of his career.
And don't get me started on lyrics. Please, dude, don't even try this Radiohead vs NIN musically shit. Like I said, NIN is one of my favorite acts. But dude. SRSLY. DUDE.
Score = 0
"douchebag". when - oh when - will that be dead?
Score = 0
Radiohead were pretty much the Rosa Parks of this Music Revolution shit, and Chris Walla is just played Cedric the Entertainer's role in Barbershop 2.
Nah, they weren't the first. Nah, it wasn't the most innovative. But it was at the right place at the right time from the right people. And, like Chris said, I'm hearing it's a pretty fucking great album.
Score = -1
"Bottom line- Trent wouldn't have started this free distribution shit if Radiohead hadn't done it. Otherwise, he would have done it for With Teeth or Year Zero."
No he wouldn't have because he was under contract to Interscope, and you telling me to get off of Trent's nutsack while you are tethered to Thom's is somewhat ironic. Sorry you didn't like Ghosts, it was perhaps too challenging for you, but it got great reviews. We were talking about the 'Radiohead Model'...is what Radiohead did worthy of claiming it as a model? Really? That's a pretty fucking low standard, and lets be clear, other bands have done this, including Smashing Pumpkins a few years back. What Radiohead did isn't a model, it's a PUBLICITY STUNT, and it worked, just look at some of these comments including yours. With the music industry dying, Reznor just showed the world how it can be done, and WILL be done. It's a real model and credit should be given where due, but then again we live in a pretty low common denominator soceity, and the use of reason is a dying art form.
"And since when did music have to be offensive to be good?"
It doesn't, I never said it had to, I just think rock music should have some level of sex and violence to it, and Radiohead lacks...I called it prissy to get you to react...and you did, congrats. I'm just not a fan of folk rock, sorry, but yeah I recognize Radiohead is good.
""douchebag". when - oh when - will that be dead?"
When it ceases getting a response. Oops.
Score = -1
"Bottom line- Trent wouldn't have started this free distribution shit if Radiohead hadn't done it. Otherwise, he would have done it for With Teeth or Year Zero."
No he wouldn't have because he was under contract to Interscope, and you telling me to get off of Trent's nutsack while you are tethered to Thom's is somewhat ironic. Sorry you didn't like Ghosts, it was perhaps too challenging for you, but it got great reviews. We were talking about the 'Radiohead Model'...is what Radiohead did worthy of claiming it as a model? Really? That's a pretty low standard, and lets be clear, other bands have done this, including Smashing Pumpkins a few years back. What Radiohead did isn't a model, it's a PUBLICITY STUNT, and it worked, just look at some of these comments including yours. With the music industry dying, Reznor just showed the world how it can be done, and WILL be done. It's a real model and credit should be given where due, but then again we live in a pretty low common denominator soceity, and the use of reason is a dying art form.
"And since when did music have to be offensive to be good?"
It doesn't, I never said it had to, I just think rock music should have some level of sex and violence to it, and Radiohead lacks in energy...I called it prissy to get you to react...and you did, congrats. I'm just not a fan of folk rock, sorry, but yeah I recognize Radiohead is good for what they do.
""douchebag". when - oh when - will that be dead?"
When it ceases getting a response. Oops.
Score = -2
Watch as I post a reply only *once*:
pissing me off quite a bit is [well - one of many]: people being all bitchy about “the way Radiohead did it”. let me restate a damn fine and significant footnote about the way In Rainbows was unveiled.. . the entire globe was told of the albums existence about 10 [ten] human days before the digital format was to be revealed the Radiohead way. THAT is the luster on the solid gold fucking pyramid of bricks that is Radiohead - they crafted an album in various caves around the globe and no_body _ had _ a _ fuck_ing _ clue. THEN a few days later they did it their way by practically giving the album away.
does anyone else understand this? [I’ll say - issue eleven of Death + Taxes Magazine got it right.]
the band that is known as Radiohead penned, planned, recorded and released an album without anybody “leaking” said materials onto this fucking mess of the internet. miracle.
get over yrslves everyone else who can never claim to have done what Radiohead did first [and they sure(ly) did skew every “Best of” list that was of 2007].
Score = 1
i agreed with your response but youre one of the most rudest stereogum comment posters i have ever seen__"its not what you say its how you say it."
Score = 0
Ghosts is too challenging?You're acting like it was Wolf Eyes or something. Please. It was a bunch of instrumentals with dark aesthetics. There's absolutely nothing challenging about that. Except the price Trent put on that shit, haha.
Radiohead is...folk music? Alright. That's pretty much the end of this.
Score = -1
im getting the feeling that all this over analysis of a so called 'model' is belittling the music itself, which is, might i add, in my opinion, still the most influencial and original music ive heard since the cocteau twins!
Score = 1
{ psst.. . don't piss on/off the Sonic Youth fans [freaks] }
Score = -2
ha someone can't get over the fact they were flamed for being wrong
Score = 1
besides..... i was giving away free music before anybody :)
Score = 0